Talk:Hannah Montana 3

Article notability

This album has a release date, cover art and track listing. Notable artist and franchise. Marginal for WP:NALBUMS and tagged as such. IMO sufficient for stub of album article that will definitely have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject when released. Redirect is reasonable, of course, but I don't believe it should be done in this case. I think this article should stay and be allowed to grow. --NrDg 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Until April 24, this article had so few hits (a handful a day) that it wasn't worth much attention. Now it's getting over 50 a day, so I concur it should stay and grow. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com as a reference

I restore the Amazon.com reference as it is the only reliable source we have right now for the album details as we know them. The other reference that was used for these details was a known unreliable blog posting that, until recently, had incorrect information about this album posted. It likely got the updated info from us and/or Amazon.com. There is strong indications that this site does not do fact checking. Amazon.com is not being used as an external link, it is solely being used as a reliable source of album information. I do not see this use violating WP:SPAM - it is only being used as a convenience reference link to support factual details. --NrDg 04:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
To add, the Amazon.com link supports album existence, name, release date and track listing. It is the only authoritative source available right now until we get a Disney press release. If we can get another WP:RS to replace that, it would be great, but so far that does not exist - the blog posting is not a WP:RS and must be removed. The intention of adding the reference is not to SPAM. We are not prohibited from linking to commercial sites if we have a valid encyclopedic reason unrelated to sales inducement. --NrDg 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, deleting the link before I noticed your comment here, excuse me. There are a couple issues?

One is that the tactic of adding a WP:SPAM link to an article to get around Wiki guidelines for external links is so well known that it's discussed in marketing meetings. (There's a citation regarding this in one of the Wiki warning messages.) A situation that increases sales will be of interest to marketing -- regardless of what reason they need to give to keep it. Putting myself in a marketing manager's shoes, I would note that I can get any number of free Wiki plugs in an article, simply by including vital information on a sales page that is not available elsewhere.

Another issue is that adding such a citation puts a burden on conscientious Wiki editors (i.e., you and me). We might: a) Look for a better link, or b) Keep the link, but watch the article for when more appropriate links are added. Having just spent several minutes removing even a couple links from a pop star article with over a hundred links, I'm not in favor of waiting. Examining scores of external links in search of those which were added for promotional purposes is a substantial burden: reading -- perhaps reading with great care -- 10,000s of words in external links.

In any event, is it necessary to have the Amazon external link referenced three times? Any editor with serious doubts would be likely to check all references. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was coming at this from another angle - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 3 (soundtrack). There is a large push to have this article. One of the main article contributors created this article with 3 different names to get around create protections and redirects. I basically needed to see some major confirmation of existence with some details to justify not deleting/redirecting it. The Amazon link does that now, nothing else is there. Without that reference we basically have nothing but lots of gossip and blogs. I understand that you are sensitized to the marketing advantage that having your product linked to on Wiki will provide. I don't think there is a problem, though, if some valid encyclopedic purpose is being met to include one though. This is a judgment call. There is only one reference link to Amazon. I don't have a problem with only using it once in the article but I think the three places it was previously referenced were appropriate as they were for different pieces of information from the reference. The cover image is also attributed to Amazon.com. --NrDg 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I knew there was a method to *my* madness. I had no idea those articles had a deletion history: this seems to have been quite time-consuming for you. Given the situation, I have no preference.

There is a larger issue, and I wonder how it can be made clear to marketing departments. Having been a webmaster for major companies, articles that have as few visits as Hannah Montana 3 are not economical for a paid person to maintain. In particular, the number of visitors who click through links to other pages is low. (It can be as low as 1 or 2%. In my experience, 10% click-through is very high.) Contrary to what might be expected, adding more links does *not* mean more click-throughs after about the first 10 links.

Evaluating Hannah Montana 3 traffic. Until recently, the average number of views per day was less than 5. (Disregarding the strange spike for five days in March.) Recently, the average is about 65, so let's use that optimistic number. Again optimistically, 10% of visitors to the page click-through to another link. (As opposed to leaving the site, doing a search, etc.) Analyzing the page, there are about 40 links in the content. (Not including the dozens added by the Hannah Montana template.) Now the math: 65 links/day * 10% = 6.5 click-throughs per day. The 6.5 visitors are divided by the number of links, giving .16 clicks per link per day. So it's possible that in a month an external link in Hannah Montana 3 will only be clicked 5 times. That's hardly a marketing coop!

There are additional negative factors, from a marketing perspective, but I'll save those for a PhD thesis. The bottom line is that I believe marketing departments are *losing* money with many of their Wikipedia modifications. The belief that if there are links, they will be valuable is blindly leading them to wrangle about trivial articles such as Hannah Montana 3. As for articles such as Britney Spears, with 191 references, even traffic of thousands a day doesn't help much when the traffic is divided so many ways. (And there are significant other negative factors, with so many references.)

If marketing departments would understand this, then maybe they'd contribute things that would both improve the article and help them -- such as placing professional photos in the public domain. Or hiring a professional biographer and researcher to add to articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Background deletion

The bakground section on Hannah Montana 3 was useful and indicated the musical and fashion inspirations for the artists new look. I think that it was a good addition to the album's information. Most album articles in Wikipedia posses a "background" section including Breakout and B'Day by Beyoncé Knowles. The subdivision had references and a video was published under a DVD released by Disney. It should have remained in the article and now must be reverted.

Yes many album articles do have a background section, but the information in a background section should pertain to information about the creation of the album the article is about. A background section should contain things such as recording information, songwriting, when it was recorded, how it was started, who worked on the album producer/songwriter-wise and things like that. The "background" section you added contained information that pertained to Hannah Montana as a whole (the show, her whole musical history, etc.) and also information that was stated elsewhere in the article. This is not an article about the history of Hannah Montana, therefore it should only contain information specifically about the album. Rockin56 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodnano05 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

CN's

I don't think that citations are needed for stating that "He Could Be the One" premiered on Radio Disney June 12 or for "Ice Cream Freeze" reaching the to the top of the Dot Com Top 3. At first, those statements did need a citation and they did have. Radio Disney was the old source, but since Radio Disney doesn't keep records or saves old planet premieres they are not needing a citation. They did have a reliable source at once and now you know that those statements are cocrrect, so they don't need a cite. Personally, I ran a google search on those two things at least 15 times each and no reliable sources appeared (only fansites and blogs). So I dispute that those cn's are unecessary. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the citation needed tags quite a few times to the statements you mentioned so let me tell you why I did it. For one, Radio Disney isn't even a notable music chart in the first place and shouldn't be stated in articles at all per Wikipedia:Record Charts. Some people would, and they may in the future, take out all information pertaining to how the songs charted on Radio Disney due to the guidelines stated in that article I mentioned above. I'm not going to take the information out, BUT I did add the tags on anything about Radio Disney that doesn't have a citation for the reason that even with citations, Radio Disney information isn't notable per Wikipedia:Record Charts, so information WITHOUT citations is even worse in my opinion. That is why I added tags on those statements. --Rockin56 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that Radio Disney was a deprecated chart, so now I see what you mean. I do think that the information should be left there, however... it's all there is until the CD is released on July 7 and songs chart on Billboard. And the second citation needed tag is not for a Radio Disney chart. It is for the premiere of the single on the radio station. So maybe a citation could be need for the "Ice Cream Freeze" thing. Though, I highly doubt anyone can find a reliable source in which "Ice Cream Freeze (Let's Chill)" topping the Dot Com Top 3 can be found. But for the "He Could Be the One" premiere it isn't needed due to the fact that a citation was placed earlier and now they have new information making the url obselete; it is correct information. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially since Radio Disney isn't a notable chart, that statement does need a citation or else it'll end up being deleted. As for the other statement about the premiere, you can't go without one and say that there was a reliable source in the past and now it's obsolete because there's no way to show that. Only people who've seen the citation or put it up would know that there was a citation previously. Anybody coming to the page now could see it as a statement with no source backing it up, they aren't going to go through the back history looking to see if there ever was a citation, do you get what I mean? It should have a citation also because in the future and far future it will look less truthful as a citation-less statement. You also can't predict that the songs will chart on the Billboard charts. It's possible that none of them will chart at all and it's possible they all will. You can't go on speculation as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Rockin56 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I never speculated that all or any of the songs chart on Billboard or even mentioned it on the article. I said until "songs chart on Billboard" which is different. I do get what you mean and of course no one is going to go to the history looking if there was a reliable source. But at the same time currently no reliable sources state of it. So what do you recommend that should be done until more information is available? Or can you try to find a reliable source? --Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will search for sources, but if I can't find any I will leave it up there and the statements may get deleted by another user. Also, just adding information to an article that may be true and putting a citation needed tag on it is not the way to get information on an article. Yes, there are other editors who can contribute, but having an article full of "citation needed" tags does not bring the article up to some guidelines and if more statements end up like that some may put a template tag on the whole article. Citation needed information is good to leave up for a couple days and see if anyone can find a reliable source and if not, then the information should be taken down. --Rockin56 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I left a message on the editor who made the statement of the episode telling him to back-up his information with reliable sources or not his edits would be deleted. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of singles

The singles from this album have been deleted and they should not have been. It is true that the singles are not of whom have charted on charts and that Radio Disney charts are not proper to be used. BUT these are notable songs that have had significant airplay and NEED to have mentioning in the article. It's not like the information says Radio Disney is an official chart or anything along those lines. And it's not like even an article especifically for those songs have been created. This just simply states info on commercial and fanatical reception. Not anything too promising has been said or stated either. And EVEN adminitstrators have contributed to the growth of the section. A song charting does not make it a single, it only measures the success of the single. What makes it a single is its release as a download/physical CD and release to airplay, two things that are factored into the positions of even the most notable and quintessential charts like Billboard's Hot 100. It is foolish to delete information that is valuable and adds to the article. In summation, the information HAS to remain in the article. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look at any other album article in Wikipedia: the "singles" section is limited to songs that have been actually released as singles, not every track that has ever received airplay. Radio Disney deciding to play a track from an album does not create a single from it. The line between single and track has become fuzzier with the advent of digital releasing and the ability to buy single tracks, but it hasn't disappeared. These tracks haven't marketed for airplay on multiple radio networks, they haven't been individually marketed, they haven't been physically released. They aren't singles.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not really... it mentions anything with airplay, chartings, or used as promotion. The difference between any other album, is that this is a soundtrack and Hannah Montana songs or most Disney artists for that matter, don't release physical CDs or digital downloads. However, I dispute the fact that they don't deserve mentioning. They are briefly mentioned, not too detailistic or song article-like. They are not official singles... they are more like promotional singles. If not as singles, they should be mentioned as songs. It is a future album and once it is released it is most probable that songs chart on notable and accepted charts. So they still deserve description and everything they have until now, it won't be long until ALL the songs are released. And "Ice Cream Freeze" is schedueled to be digitally released tommorrow.--Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that every song listed should NOT be considered a single. You are saying that the addition of the songs in the "Singles" section is for "information that is valuable and adds to the article" but a Singles section is for just that, singles, not a list of songs with information that might be informative to people. Radio Disney is just releasing the songs for the purpose of gaining anticipation of the album premiere on the station as such they did with the Jonas Brothers most recent album. Radio Disney played all of Jonas' songs from the new album every day up until its album premiere on the station but each of those songs weren't considered a single. As for the music videos, the entire concert Miley did as Hannah was for the purpose of having footage for music videos for promotion on Disney and mainly for use in the television show. The songs that haven't charted and haven't even been released digitally should NOT be on the list, because they are only being played on Radio Disney and as of now every track from the album is on the Singles list and every track is surely not a single. Also, the statement that they may appear on the Billboard charts in the future is purely speculation and shouldn't be used as a factor in discussion as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rockin56 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

-

The material I removed incorrectly described the tracks as singles, and made constant references to positions on the Radio Disney charts. If you care to expand the discussion of the tracks by adding a paragraph that describes them without mentioning Radio Disney charts or describing them as singles, I probably will leave that alone.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will do so, separating the songs into two groups, "singles" and "non-singles". I do not believe in altering the information about Radio Disney's chart. It only states or proves fanatical response. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Any information about Radio Disney charts will be removed immediately. It's on WP:BADCHARTS for a reason. It is strictly a marketing tool of Disney, and does not accurately measure anything at all.—Kww(talk) 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"A paragraph" is not "a paragraph per song". —Kww(talk) 02:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not done. I was occupied with another matter. I'm sorry, I'll get right on it.--Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's All Right Here

How come It's All Right Here was taken off the Hannah Montana 3 Soundtrack Singles list? The Music Video was shown on Disney CHannel in November 2008 it was for the promotion for Season 3 of Hannah Montana, can someone add it back on? - Alec2011 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Release history

I think that Release history - Catalog is useless. It is not important. Can I remove the catalog?? Dennissell (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It may seems a little pointless and uninportant, but in the standard for a release history it must be included, see Wikipedia:Albums#Release history. So no, the catalog section should not be removed. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Singles section

The "Singles" section in the article is incorrect. None of those songs are singles, yes they did recieve airplay and entered charts, but so did Miley Cyrus's "Breakout". That doesn't mean it is an official single. I think the section could easily be changed to "Songs" due to that, not even "Let's Do This" or "Let's Get Crazy" are singles. They were not released to digital retailers as "singles" or "Radio Disney Exclusive: (Name of the song) - Single" to iTunes. They should, however, be mentioned because they charted and recieved airplay. Let's face it they ARE NOT singles. Another point which I want to bring about the single section is the format, lists and asterisks (bullets) should be avoided, the information should be a paragraph form. Maybe a paragraph for each. But still, tnat would disturb the flow of the article due to that some of the information for songs like "It's All Right Here", "Don't Wanna Be Torn" and "Supergirl" is not more than two sentences (by the way the intro to each song... Ex: "Supergirl" is a song from Hannah Montana 3 is obvious and repetative data). So, I would like discuss before making any edits that could lead to potential edit wars. Please share your opinion. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already been discussed that "Let's Do This" and "Let's Get Crazy" were singles during the last time there was a problem with the single section. You also have to remember that "Let's Do This" and "Let's Get Crazy" were originally from the Hannah Montana: The Movie soundtrack. As for the other songs, until someone else shares their opinion, they're following the same format as some other CDs have. Take a look at the Hannah Montana: The Movie soundtrack page. The songs that were released before the album release and that charted before album release are listed as singles. The songs that charted after release due to popularity are listed, but with a "This song..." or "_______ is a song..." intro because it's NOT a single just because it gained popularity post-release. As for the format, it should stay in the list format. I could provide you rows of links here of albums that use the format because it's the most organized and easy-to-read. Most people aren't going to sit and read through an entire paragraph. It's much easier to read in a separated format so people can get to information about separate songs much quicker. It's definitely not a good idea to change the format.--Rockin56 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I realize what your saying about songs that charted before the album, but if they are from another album and charted after the release of the album, I don't think that makes it a single. So as of now, "Ice Cream Freeze (Let's Chill)" might be the only single for being released by the Radio Disney iTunes Pass before the release of the album, though I think "He Could Be the One" should be a single for being digitally available before the release of the album, if we use these "standards". Overall, you should look at any other album, like Guilty Pleasure, Fearless and The E.N.D. In iTunes, they had a "countdown" that made a new song digitally available each week... and those songs are not in the singles list (they are simply talked about as promotional singles). And if the format was to stay as a list it would not encourage FA or GA reviewers to rate it in those levels. So I know the readers would like to just see information just on a particular song, but I don't know how to merge these two things in order to find the perfect balance. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes those albums did get a countdown, but the songs weren't singles. The Radio Disney iTunes pass has nothing to do with it being a single or not because there are songs in the pass that aren't singles at all. There's a fine line between a single and something that is not. Take for example "Let's Do This," "Let's Get Crazy," and "Ice Cream Freeze (Let's Chill)" all were released digitally before this album release (the first two being on the HM movie soundtrack on 3/24), charted on the Billboard, received airplay, a non-promo music video, and promotion. The others did get music videos, but there is a difference between the music videos being premiered near the release of the song and at a time apart like the first three and all together once-a-night like the 5 they showed recently. That separates them between non-promo and promo. But let's wait until we get another opinion before making more edits. As for the format, like I said there are MANY album articles, most of them actually, that utilize the list format for the singles section. It's much more easier to read and more commonly used. You changed the lists to just paragraphs now and it's hard to distinguish between them without bold headings. We need to come to a decision and get some more opinions before making more edits to it. --Rockin56 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. There are other editors that contribute daily to this article and they, like us, have the right have a say in the problems here with the singles section. Let's wait until other editors come along and share their opinion. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture Needed for the Hannah Montana 3 Karaoke Cover

There's no picture posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.198.136 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hannah Montana 3

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hannah Montana 3's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "riaa":

• From Obsessed (song): "Gold & Platinum". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
• From Hannah Montana: The Movie (soundtrack): Lamy, Jonathan (June 23, 2009). "Miley's Metallic May". Riaa.com. Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved October 9, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)